This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 3), and Plaintiff Phillip Burton Hausken's ("Hausken") objections to the R&R (Dkt. 6).

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, receive further evidence, or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

Judge Strombom's R&R properly observes that Hausken failed to complete his application to proceed in forma pauperis and by doing so avoided having his filing dismissed as a "malicious filing that is duplicative of several other actions." Dkt. 3 at 1 ( citing Hausken v. Lewis, 3:12-cv-5882-BHS-JRC (same cause of action)).

Hausken's instant filing is rather confusing. While his submission references and was filed under another case number not assigned to Judge Strombom, [1] and it thanks Judge Strombom for allowing him "the $350 dollar filing-fee and photo copying costs" in a case number he cannot recall, Hausken does not specifically object to any finding in Judge Strombom's R&R denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 6 at 1. However, he indicates that he is submitting a financial affidavit with his application to proceed in forma pauperis, and attaches some forms in an attempt to show that he is indigent and qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 6 at 2-3. Hausken makes no objections to the R&R's finding that had he completed an application to proceed in forma pauperis his case would be dismissed as malicious because of duplicative filing. See id.

The documents submitted by Hausken are not the forms the Court uses to determine whether an applicant qualifies for indigency status such that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Although he was sent the appropriate forms, he did not use them. Dkt. 2. The forms Hausken submits appear to be state court documents: the motion to proceed in forma pauperis itself is a state form with the adapted title "Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division III Tacoma" and the caption reads in part "In re Personal Restraint Petition of Daniel Lewis" (a named defendant in this case). Dkt. 6 at 3. In short, his application to proceed in forma pauperis is still deficient.

Moreover, as Judge Strombom found in her R&R, had Hausken submitted a proper application, his filing would have been deemed a malicious filing[2] as duplicative of multiple causes of action he has filed. See Dkt. 3 at 1.

The Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff's objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

(1) The R&R is ADOPTED; and

(2) This action is DISMISSED with ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.